I thought it would be good to integrate them into one, and make life easier for AWA, for the good of all of us.
From now on, I would call on everyone to post here, so we get the consolidation in place.
An Open Plea to Google to Keep the Old Interface Alive
[webmasterworld.com...]
Google rolling out new UI today
[webmasterworld.com...]
Forced onto New Adwords Interface
[webmasterworld.com...]
AWA
Clients were not happy.
We raised our PPC mgmt fees by 25% to account the extra time required to deal with the lethargic performance of the new interface.
Makes sense! I don't know of to many where Google isn't costing them more money, time, and energy.
Well we did it today. We raised our PPC mgmt fees by 25% to account the extra time required to deal with the lethargic performance of the new interface.Clients were not happy.
A very interesting way to to 'quantify' the success of the new UI for you, Harvey44.
I'll pass your comment along to the team behind the new (well, not so new anymore, really) UI later this evening.
AWA
Think about the only thing clients care about ROI - return on investment. The return hasn't increased, but the investment has. So the ROI is down. I can't see how you could possibly interpret spending more time to accomplish the same thing as a success.
At a more basic level think about the elegance - or lack thereof - of highly paid professionals spending 10% of their day - watching that little circle spin around and around.
In a perverted way some agency people might consider this success - we were hired to day by a client who no longer wanted to handle his Adwords internally. His words - "it's just not fun anymore."
I'm not saying that some of the new features aren't great. There's no question that we use the "on the fly search query information" to great advantage. But the overriding factors against the new interface are the lack of speed - and the extra steps required to use the keyword tool.
FYI - it seemed like a few weeks ago the speed had improved, but now it's back to where it was. Not sure if that's real, or just a growing level of frustration.
Think about the only thing clients care about ROI - return on investment. The return hasn't increased, but the investment has. So the ROI is down. I can't see how you could possibly interpret spending more time to accomplish the same thing as a success.
AWA - I assume you are joking.
No, not at all Harvey44 - I was dead serious in thinking that it is a very interesting way to make the point of how the speed is not working for you.
My reply did have an implied and intended-to-be tongue in cheek 'lack of' in front of the word 'success', however. Which may not have come across as well as I had intended. ;)
I find it to be a much more compelling comment than something along the lines of 'The new UI really sucks because it is too slow!' - and it is exactly the sort of thing that I like to quote because it really puts people reading it in your shoes, instead of theirs. Got my attention, that's for sure.
Your follow up post makes it even more compelling - and I'll happily quote that as well.
So, thanks. ;)
AWA
With the old keyword tool if I started with "orlando hotel"... I'd get logical suggestions like "hotel in orlando" "hotels in orlando" "orlando florida hotel." you get the idea. Now I have to type it all out.
Also WHY do I have to type out the different match types myself in the semi-convenient "add keywords" feature?
The speed issue is driving me crazy. By burying the all important keyword tool, and with the new tools serious inadequacy... it takes way too much time.
PLEASE. I BEG YOU. DO NOT DISCONTINUE THE OLD KW TOOL until interface speed issues and KW tools issues are worked out.
Regards,
AWA
somebody needs to do a detailed analysis of what it is suggesting. and i'd say the starting point should be for G to look at accepted suggestions and how they're performing versus the pre-acceptance time period.
i get some very poor suggestions, in bulk - so from a time management perspective, i have to ignore the tons of alarms posting in my client accounts.
sometimes i see keywords i have in another focused ad group being suggested elsewhere - G should analyze for existing words and see if the relevance goes down where the new suggested location is - and not suggest it, if it's predicted to perform worse.
predicted quality scores need to be added - right now, there's a volume approach. as we all have learned, if the QS ain't there, the predicted volume won't be there. further, with the numbers of suggestions the machine is cranking out, we need a way to prioritize the list - and i think nothing would beat QS for all parties involved.
